ISIS Incitement on Internet Raises Second Thoughts About First Amendment
It is one of the most hallowed precepts in modern constitutional law: Freedom of speech may not be curbed unless it poses a "clear and present danger" — an actual, imminent threat, not the mere advocacy of harmful acts or ideas. But in response to the Islamic State's success in grooming jihadis over the Internet, some legal scholars are asking whether it is time to reconsider that constitutional line.
Appeals for a tougher response to the Islamic State's online recruiting efforts have, not surprisingly, emerged from the political realm. Donald J. Trump said the government should call on Bill Gates and others to somehow close off dangerous Internet sites, and called First Amendment concerns foolish.
這是美國現代憲法中最受尊崇的準則之一：言論自由不受侵犯，除非構成「明確而立即的危險」，亦即僅僅提倡傷人的行為或觀念還不屬此範圍，而要構成實際發生且立即的威脅才算。不過，有鑒於伊斯蘭教激進組織「伊斯蘭國」（IS）用網路成功培養聖戰士，一些法律學者已在討論是否該重新考慮言論自由的尺度。
美國政壇也並不令人意外的，出現要求加強對付IS網路招募活動的呼聲。共和黨總統參選人川普說，政府應要求微軟創辦人蓋茲等人用某種方式封鎖危險的網站，他說，有人擔心這會侵害憲法增修條文第一條保障的言論自由，是愚昧的想法。
Hillary Clinton said the government should work with host companies to shut jihadi websites and chat rooms. That would be constitutional if voluntary, legal experts say, but not if the government exerted pressure on private firms to cooperate in censorship.
Some security experts called on YouTube to ban videos of lectures by Anwar al-Awlaki, which helped radicalize the attackers in San Bernardino, California, and many others.
民主黨參選人希拉蕊．柯林頓說，政府應與主機公司合作，關掉聖戰士網站與聊天室。法律專家指出，若民間公司自願配合就合憲，政府施壓要求配合審查則屬違憲。
有些安全專家呼籲YouTube，禁止凱達組織葉門分部首腦奧拉基的演說影片流傳，他的影片讓加州聖伯納地諾郡槍擊案的槍手和另外許多人變得激進。
激進組織伊斯蘭國透過社群媒體發布影音招募成員，引起各國關切。 圖／美聯社
Recently, a few legal scholars have engaged in what others call First Amendment heresy. What does clear and present danger mean when terrorists are provoking violence over the Internet?
The existing standard is often illustrated by the classic example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no hazard. That is not protected speech because it could cause a deadly stampede. But an article praising the merits of causing stampedes, even offering phrases to shout, is not closely enough linked to an imminent, actual threat to be outlawed.
近來有一些法律學者主張別人所謂的「憲法增修條文第一條的異端邪說」。當恐怖分子在網路上煽動暴力時，所謂明確而立即的危險是指什麼？
學者常用以下範例說明現行評斷標準：某人在沒有危險的擁擠戲院裡大喊「失火了！」此舉不受憲法保障，因為可能引發致命踩踏意外。然而，若有一篇文章對引發踩踏意外加以讚揚，甚至提供可用來高喊的辭彙，卻並不足以構成立即且實際發生的威脅，也就不違法。
A more forceful case and a legislative proposal were put forth by Eric Posner, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. The Islamic State's ability to spread "ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks," he said, "calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of speech."
Posner supported urging companies like Facebook and YouTube to crack down on propaganda by the Islamic State. He proposed, in addition, passing a law to deter potential consumers from viewing dangerous sites.
芝加哥大學法學教授波斯納提出更強力的論證及立法提案。他說，IS能散播「直接引發恐怖攻擊的觀念，值得我們重新思考言論自由的界線」。
波斯納贊成要求臉書、YouTube等公司打擊IS的宣傳攻勢，此外他提議立法，嚇阻潛在的恐怖主義支持者瀏覽危險的網站。
David G. Post, a former professor of constitutional law who is a senior fellow at the Open Technology Institute of the New America Foundation in Washington, was one of many legal experts to condemn Posner's idea.
"I think it is a slippery slope," Post said in an interview. He said that efforts to suppress radical views "can be far too easily twisted into a prohibition against dissenting viewpoints."
許多法律專家譴責波斯納的主張，曾是憲法學教授、現任華府新美國基金會開放科技研究所高級研究員的波斯特是其中之一。
波斯特受訪時說，「我認為這種主張犯了滑坡謬誤」，打壓激進觀點「很容易就會被扭曲成完全禁止不同意見」。
（Erik Eckholm, 紐約時報, 李京倫譯）
說文解字看新聞
美國「憲法增修條文第一條」（First Amendment）：美國憲法制定時未納入權利法案（The Bill of Rights），但人民普遍希望憲法明定自己的權利。1789年，眾議員麥迪遜提出權利法案作為憲法增修條款，國會共通過12條，但只有10條獲各州批准，於1791年12月15日納入憲法。
此增修條文保障宗教、言論、出版的自由與集會、請願的權利，內容為：「國會不得制定有關下列事項的法律：確立一種宗教或禁止信教自由：剝奪（abridge）言論自由或出版自由；或剝奪人民和平集會及向政府伸冤（petition the government for a redress of grievances）的權利。」
滑坡謬誤（Slippery slope）是一種邏輯謬誤（logical fallacy），形式為「如果發生Ａ，接著就會發生Ｂ，接著就會發生Ｃ……接著就會發生Ｚ」，用意是「Ｚ不應發生，因此不應允許Ａ發生」，但其實A到Ｚ未必有連鎖關係，且愈後面的事愈不可能發生。例如：「不要讓幼兒走出自己的房間，如果走出房間，就會在家裡晃蕩，接著會走出屋外，然後被人口販子賣到外國變性奴。」
（李京倫）
留言列表
